Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday May 30, 2009 @09:20AM
from the attack-of-the-clones dept.

bughunter writes "Cnet is reporting that Mac clone maker Quo Computer plans to open its first retail location, selling Mac clones, on June 1st. To start, Quo will offer three desktop systems: the Life Q, Pro Q, and Max Q. While details of the components are not yet available, founder Rashantha De Silva said they are looking at Apple's system configurations for guidance. Pricing has also not been finalized on the desktop machines, but the company is looking to start pricing at less than $900. While Quo is starting off with the desktop machines, De Silva said it is looking at offering an Apple TV-like media server and a smaller computer similar to the Mac Mini. He acknowledges that Quo will likely face opposition from Apple, much like Psystar. 'They probably will (sue us),' De Silva said. 'There are others doing this, but we have a different attitude. There are thousands of people in the "Hackintosh" market, but many of them are creating bad products. I don't think anyone wins in that environment.'"

Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware? It's going to be unstable, missing features, and chances are that getting updates from Apple to install with or without hosing your installation is going to be a bitch.

The same argument applies (arguably doubly so) to people running pirated copies of Windows. Personally, I stick with Linux.

That said, if OS X would work reasonably on my system, I'd (at least) dual-boot it for sure. It runs perfectly well on a relative's store-bought standard PC though, and I can easily see why people would run it rather than Windows.

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho. They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers, and got quickly to the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for them. Even Linux has managed that, so Apple definitely could.

Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.

Yes, that's true for electronics inside the box. It's all commodity hardware. Apple does not make their own memory or CPU or hard drive.

But they do make their own motherboards, they make their own cooling solutions, they often meticulously design power supplies to be quiet, they will often times design the battery. They design the cases to be sturdy, have excellent heat conduction and they are quiet.

I was amazed when I first opened my Mac Pro how simple and elegant it is inside and how amazingly quiet (for heavy aluminum case that's quite a feat). As you can see I value quiet quite a bit:D.

And things like these are important to a select few users that choose to buy Apple. When it comes to notebook computers, case and tactile feel matters even more.

And in the end it is the integrated package that matters as well. User experience and expectation is well managed from the moment you receive the box, from opening it, to using the computer (hardware part) to using the OS.

Just providing OS X for users to buy and install on whatever hardware would not lead to comparable or even similar user experience. But if you ship your OS on your designed hardware you know that every user has the minimum accepted standard and same experience as others. This is why Apple leads the user satisfaction surveys.

But they do make their own motherboards, they make their own cooling solutions, they often meticulously design power supplies to be quiet, they will often times design the battery. They design the cases to be sturdy, have excellent heat conduction and they are quiet.

It might be that they mean "Designed by Apple in California" and not "Designed by Apple in Shanghai". I love California even less than most people, but the bottom line is, jobs (small "j") in California are jobs in the USA.

On the original topic, I paid a premium for my Mac, knowing that I could get similar specs for cheaper on a PC, for two reasons. I prefer OS X, and I enjoy the fact that the hardware and software, including a number of included, free applications, are pre-integrated for me and function as a cohesive whole. I'm pretty nerdy, I could set up an easy workflow for my tasks on a PC or other OS given enough time, but I don't want to spend the time. So I spent the money.

It's not that one is inherently better than the other, it's that they are different value propositions. Certainly they have different strengths and weaknesses, and I would have thought that this community, if not the general public, would understand this by now.

I was amazed when I first opened my Mac Pro how simple and elegant it is inside and how amazingly quiet (for heavy aluminum case that's quite a feat).

No, for a light aluminum case, that would be quite a feat. Apple took care of the noise by using a heavy aluminum case. I know, I have a G5 power mac tower, the thing is heavy, thick aluminum. Built like a tank, and elegant, but the case is heavy and solid. I'm not complaining, but the feat was made much easier by using a thick metal case.

Wrong. Current sales offerings only provide a half dozen configurations that OSX supports, but OSX Leopard still supports G4 systems (and will unofficially run on G3 systems), and all the configurations from then until now. While the number of officially supported hardware pieces is smaller than Windows, the range is no less. Multiple CPU architectures, GPUs from 3 major vendors, RAM of all sorts, wireless from Atheros, Broadcom, and probably others, support for most USB devices and anyone else who will write a driver. Add in the knowledge gained from the OSX86 community and it supports damn near everything else outside of weird proprietary 3rd party stuff that Windows or Linux couldn't support without that manufacturer's help either.

That's no less diverse than other OSs, and better than Windows in most cases.

True, but then when they were using PowerPC processors they were still nothing unusual.

Nobody except games console makers have custom chips these days, they cost so much to develop and tend to be poor in comparison to off the shelf. Apple machines are designed better on the whole than generic PC hardware, quieter, better looking and just more pleasing to use.

An XBox was just a PC with unified memory architecture, but that didn't give anyone the right to clone it.

Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.

Please mod this garbage down. You can easily say pre-Intel Macs were made of commodity hardware also, and the argument would just boil down to "is a PowerPC processor a commodity?" What the hell does that matter? That is the among the LAST parts anyone would be considering when talking of consumer level OS/hardware integration. We all know Apple doesn't manufacture hard drives, DIMMs, and processors. Thanks for the info anyway.

Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.

So, how would you describe your level of experience with Apple hardware? Or are you repeating what you've learned on/.? Please, for the love of GOD, don't repeat stuff you heard on/., ON/., and feel good about your +5 informative. There is so much misinformation here, it's retarded.

Before anyone starts, I'm not a fucking fanboy. There is a LOT to hardware/software integration other than "has drivers", and that goes for all PC's, electronics, etc. Maybe that's the Linux definition of 'integration', 'works at some level'. Ohhh, no I didn't. Yes I did.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the situation you just described happens to real macs too. Every time they release a new machine or refresh one of the lines, something doesn't work. Lines across the screen, video chips that separate from the mainboard, random freezes, etc.

They haven't been able to make a legitimate "we build the whole thing so it's stable" argument in a long time, if they ever could.

I had a client bring me a 1st gen Macbook 13" that had been having intermittent kernel panic issues. The issue became more and more frequent, to the point where she just couldn't use the machine at all.

I searched teh intertubes and found out that many people had the same problem, and that the problem was a design fault. A small plastic 'bridge' which held in the wireless card would loosen over time, allowing the card to start shorting enough that it caused the kernel panic. Apple tech support solution wa

Agreed, but Apple chooses to sell only a few well-tested configurations which ensure fewer bugs creeping in than in a PC/MS environment (or even a PC/Linux environment).
They're simply nailing down the variables (such as fewer supports GPUs) to offer their "user experience". I hate that term, but I do like OS X and the fact that I have had almost no trouble with it.

10.5.7 came out, and fucked everyone who was using a DVI-HDMI connector. 3 weeks later, they're still fucked, unable to use their monitors at

It's amazing the number of Apple zealots who will go on and on about what mad skillz Apple's OS developers have, then turn around and insist they'd be so incompetent as to tie their basic design into particular hardware designs.

In any event, from a component perspective an Apple Mac is a generic PC. Same CPU, same hard disk, same RAM, same chipset, same video card.

It's amazing the number of Apple zealots who will go on and on about what mad skillz Apple's OS developers have, then turn around and insist they'd be so incompetent as to tie their basic design into particular hardware designs.

Supporting many hardware configurations doesn't require "mad skillz," it just requires mongolian hordes of devlopers, and not minding that everyone in the support queue hates you. It would probably also mean the end of the Genius Bar as we know it, a

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho.

I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but one thing they're not is stupid. I'm sure they've run the numbers and determined they make more money by keeping OS X exclusive to their hardware (ie, not cannibalizing their own hardware sales and the large profit margins they can make on them) than taking the hardware sales loss to greatly inflate their sales of OS X, where margins are probably much thinner--and where, frankly, Microsoft can and does play dirty with their pricing.

They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers, and got quickly to the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for them.

But is that their business model? Or is it a good business model compared to the one they currently have? Even setting aside the costs of supporting any old piece of hardware someone wants to run on, the difference between the OS business and the premium PC business is pretty significant. The former has a couple orde

Apple doesn't break out their revenues and income by product segment, so a direct comparison is difficult; also, they don't publish a fancy Annual report, just a 10-Q for the SEC, which is available here (and probably lots of other places), so no linking to the pertinent section:

The big difference is that Microsoft is selling OEM's licenses to Windows, with essentially no production costs (just development costs) and Apple has to buy all the parts for those computers from somebody, with costs that comprise a substantial portion of the eventual revenue that they bring in.

It's possible that computer hardware sales are more lucrative than other Apple products, but I doubt that it is a factor of 2 or whatever. So Microsoft could halve the revenue they are bringing in for OS sales and still probably be making more income on those revenues than Apple makes.

I think the biggest reason Apple doesn't want to license OS X for sale is that they would lose control over the experience ("It just works" is a big marketing point for them). Next in line is that they have significant hardware operations that would face lower margin competitors, likely eroding their revenues.

I mistyped -- meant "profit", not "profit margin" (too many arguments too early in the morning).

What I had in mind was a comparison like:

Operating system sales: 75 cents on each of a hundred million units

Premium hardware sales: 75 dollars on each of a million units

Which is, as far as I can tell, a reasonable pair of numbers to pull out of my ass (though nobody in the general public knows for sure how much Apple makes on hardware). This underscores the fact that you can make some pretty good money on hardwa

Personally, I think the higher profit-per-unit is a better bet in the long run, since it's a bit easier to survive a downturn in the market (when you're not making much on each unit sold, you need to sell a lot more to stay afloat -- that's why, for example, Dell is hurting pretty bad right now).

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho.

<irony>Yes, especially after Steve Jobs' attempt to sell NeXTStep as an alternate OS was such a resounding success, not forgettimg how people queued up to buy BeOS and the way 99% of desktop users switched to Linux ages ago. Apple were so successful in the 1990s when they were selling dull beige boxes and licensing MacOS 9 to third parties - but since Jobs came back and got them selling cool hardware again hardly anybody has heard of them.</irony>

Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware, imho. They could probably kill windows overnight if they invested in mainstream hardware drivers, and got quickly to the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for them. Even Linux has managed that, so Apple definitely could.

Your reasoning: OSX is better than Windows, so if it was made more accessible, people would move to it.

Consider this: Linux is also better than Windows: more stable, more reliable, heck, more us

I told a woman to get Linux on her next computer today. She told me a Gateway Athlon 64 X2 system with a ~22" HD-res LCD with component and s-video inputs for $120 because she didn't want to try to fix it, or pay to have someone else try to fix it. I love garage sales. (System has onboard nvidia graphics and 1GB DDR2, whee. It also has a DVD-RW/RAM and the nice wireless microsoft kb/mouse.) I'm pretty sure she'll do it, too. I told her to buy it preloaded. If it works for her, and she tells her friends... w

Because Macs are hideously expensive for the level of hardware you get compared to the level of hardware you can get for a PC for the same price. If you can't see the difference between $899 (tops) and $1149 for an iMac and $2300 for a Mac Pro (minimums)*, well, you either have entirely too much money to throw around or you're just a horrible fanboi.

For that matter, who says it's going to be unsupported hardware? Macs moved to Intel and commodity hardware

BMW's are hideously expensive for the level of car you get compared to the level of car you can get with a Chevy for the same price. Check for yourself.

You make a good point. The BMW and the Mac both offer something that the Chevy and the PC don't and that is free, well thought out, comprehensive service. A lot of people think the name's pretentious, and it probably is, but the genius bar is increadible, especially for those people who don't understand computers as well as most of the people on/. I remember when I bought my last PC I was offered customer service for $75 a year. I turned it down because I know how to fix a computer when it isn't workin

Cuz you can't get a 9" laptop with 2 gigs of ram, an 8 gig ssd, and wifi that runs OSX for $300 from Apple.

You can, however, get one from Dell and a number of other manufacturers. Let's compare the missing features between the $300 Dell Mini9 I gave my GF for her birthday with what Apple is offering:

Dell Mini 9: two finger scrolling (fixed in next DellEFI update)

Apple $300 netbook: has no features because it doesn't exist!

So it turns out that Dell's $300 laptop running Mac OSX offers a lot more functionality than Apple's $300 laptop. It's not even like Apple is offering a $400 or $500 laptop. No the cheapest laptop is $1000.

Unfair comparison? If my choices were limited to Apple laptops then I just couldn't get my GF a mac laptop for her birthday. She is quite grateful that the Dell Mini 9 is available. She said she would feel horrible if I spent over a $1000 on her present, plus it would be larger and heavier. She doesn't want a bigger and heavier laptop with "power" she doesn't need.

Conveniently, the Mac OS retail box comes with Apple stickers to cover up the Dell logo.

*found out they stopped making the mini 9 in the last month or two but my argument still holds

*found out they stopped making the mini 9 in the last month or two but my argument still holds

And what is your argument, that Apple should make sure they have a product to meet each and every possible computing need? Jobs has already stated that they have not gotten into netbooks because they haven't figured out how to compete in that segment yet (i.e. offer a quality product at the prices that people expect). I'm glad they don't release half-assed products in segments they have assessed will not provide decent returns. I'm also glad that Dell apparently is able to do so for those who are interes

It's the principle of the matter. In this case a Gestapo-like EULA needs to be torn down. It's akin to the RIAA telling you that your new CD can only be run in officially sanctioned players in order to ensure "the highest playback experience". For me this is less about buying a hackintosh than it is about being told what to do with something I've purchased legally.

It's akin to the RIAA telling you that your new CD can only be run in officially sanctioned players in order to ensure "the highest playback experience".

For a very long time RIAA defined the standard for phonograph preemphasis [wikipedia.org], so in literal fact you couldn't play a record on a player and get the "highest playback experience" unless that record player used the RIAA curve.

Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop. There are quite a few out there that would like a Mac tower that has upgrade potential that can't afford to bend over and grab their ankles like you do with the Mac Pro line. Frankly the Mac Pro line is extreme overkill to most folks who just want an Apple tower with some upgrade slots, which they really haven't had an affordable option in that area in many years.

So to answer your question it is the same reason a Grey market pops up in any area. There are those that want a product, the ones in charge of that market refuse to give it to them, someone see a potential for profit, and therefor enters and creates a place for these under served customers to spend their money. It is about pure classical supply and demand, nothing more. Apple refuses to supply what many customers want, so someone else comes in to fill that demand. if Apple really wanted to get rid of this market it couldn't be more simple. Just give the customer what they want. The fact that companies keep entering this market and have no trouble finding customers simply proves the demand is there.

So before the Apple fans start screaming "Apple ripoff" just remember: This market wouldn't exist if Apple would give the customers a midrange line, which they have been asking for over and over again for many many years.

Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop

Asserting it, even in capitals, does not make it true. Desktops, of any kind, now make up around 40% of total computer sales. Laptop sales passed desktops for Macs a few years back, and for the industry as a whole over a year ago. The only people who want a midrange desktop, as opposed to something like a Mac Mini or an iMac, are those that want to be able to upgrade their hardware, but don't want to pay the premium for something like the Mac Pro. Not only is this not a huge market, it is an incredibly unprofitable market to be in, with the lowest margins of any computer market segment.

And yet I bought an Apple desktop this year. Got a mini cause I couldn't justify buying a Pro. If Apple was selling single CPU mATX type systems priced and spec'd about the same as the iMac line I would have bought one. I not asking that Apple sell this kind of computer for dirt cheap or to cut their profit margins. Honestly, Apple could sell it through the online store only and keep out of the brick and mortar stores. I just want a computer that would be the equivalent of the $1600 PowerMac I could get yea

First, the company posted a profit in the first quarter, which surprised analysts, but net profit is down a whopping 94% from the same period last year. And the company recorded a large operating loss for hte company.

Because a Hackintosh gives you options. You can custom build your own Mac from the ground up, and if you're careful in your hardware selection, everything will work with minimal fuss. You get a tower that costs a fraction of a Mac Pro (assuming you don't need a Xeon-based workstation), you can do it yourself, and you get so many more expansion options not available in Apple's commodity line. I just replaced the wife's aging AMD rig with an Intel-based Hackie. It's working quite well. So well, in fact, that

I know Apple hardware is supposed to be of high quality, and it is often argued that buying a similar-quality PC would cost as much as a Mac. But I still believe there is enough excess profit to Apple for a clone maker to offer the same quality for less money. This is probably the reason Apple will not see Quo just as a manufacturer who will help popularize their OS.

Interesting. Cheap knockoffs sully the brand, but excellent ones cannibalize sales. There may be no hope for a would-be Mac clone maker without enough capital allocated to legal defense.

The thing is though, OS X already runs on lower hardware. Officially Leopard can be run on a 2001 G4. To put that in perspective thats about an early P4 in terms of age. Assuming that Apple's hardware is of amazing quality thats still way slower then the typical computer. Apple has things that few people really need such as DDR3 RAM. Sure, its faster but its also way more expensive.

If Apple officially supports running Leopard on hardware made in 2001, I would think they couldn't lose any customers by ha

I would think hardware horsepower is less of an issue than build quality, aesthetic appeal, flaky drivers and bundled crapware. Product design is a significant part of the overall branding, and it doesn't surprise me that they'd be unhappy to put that in others hands. I guess some kind of franchise-like model where Apple retains some say in what ultimately leaves the production line could work, but then you just get back to the point that they can make more money doing it themselves.

The build quality of hardware is improving though. In the past ~2 years the only thing that I can think of thats gone wrong on my EEE, new-ish laptop, 5 year old desktop and 7 year old desktop is that on the 5 year old one because I moved it so much the SATA cable came a bit loose and I needed to reconnect it to the HD before it would boot, but that can happen with even Apple branded hardware. And all these systems are cheap, running various OSes, etc.

This is probably the reason Apple will not see Quo just as a manufacturer who will help popularize their OS.

That and the fact that Apple is a hardware company, which everyone seems to forget. OS X is built specifically to sell Apple computers. Apple != Microsoft, but since most consumers see the computer for the OS, it becomes OS X versus Windows instead of Apple versus HP or Apple versus Dell, which is the way Apple sees it. Why do you think they are so ready to advertise running Windows on your mac? They don't care if you don't use OS X, they just want you to buy their computers.

But if Apple dominated the OS market they could control the hardware market too. If Apple got every PC user hooked to OS X as much as every Mac fanboy, Apple could switch architectures and take the hardware market with it....

"But if Apple dominated the OS market they could control the hardware market too. If Apple got every PC user hooked to OS X as much as every Mac fanboy, Apple could switch architectures and take the hardware market with it...."

Did I miss something? Didn't Apple switch over to Intel in 2006?

Every time I read about a CEO being paid millions, I think 'wow, there have to be lots of people out there who could do the job just as well for a lot less'. Then I read Slashdot comments and wonder if I am mistaken. A la

Ok, think of it this way, if in ~1998 when Apple was killing itself and Linux hadn't caught on, if MS decided "Hey, we're moving to the ARM platform" and developed chips for it that worked, etc. We would probably be using ARM right now. Same thing for Apple, if everyone started using exclusively Macs, Windows dwindled to where it was in last place, Linux made no huge leaps forward, then if Apple only developed for the Cell platform and made good Cell chips, I would think we would move to Cell CPUs similarly

Apple's belief that they should be a hardware company (as they were when they started) is what keeps their share of the market from growing. If they want to grow (maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too) then they are going to have to change. It seems to ancient idea now when hardware (including their own) has become commodity to such an extent.

I know it's an opinion, but it's a widely held opinion: Apple does better at building an OS that Microsoft. If they had refocused a few years ago and

You are comparing Apple's and Oranges. Apple has a share of the Hardware Market. They compete with HP, Dell, and innumerable others. You wish them to compete in the OS market...against Microsoft...which has the hardware companies by the balls and plays one dirty game of corporate pool. Now why would they win this competition?

By working to put out product that is at least a degree of magnitude better that MS! There are a lot of ways you can define "better," but everyone knows that MS has weaknesses in quality on many levels. Apple has them beat on many levels without even trying. If they actually took on MS head to head they would win at least sometimes even with the dirty tactics, and every win makes it harder for MS to get away the the crap they've become known for.

Apple's belief that they should be a hardware company (as they were when they started) is what keeps their share of the market from growing. If they want to grow (maybe they don't really want to, and that's okay too) then they are going to have to change. It seems to ancient idea now when hardware (including their own) has become commodity to such an extent.

Apple's main asset is their image. They would damage it if they didn't control it like they do by carefully selecting all hardware and software.

They are not here to fight Microsoft or Windows... they're here to bring us a new business model based on getting tech gadgets that simply do the job, and do it right. Releasing their OS for all hardware would bring in more gold in the short run, but would probably change their image and turn them into just another software vendor.

Apple wants to make good products that they're excited about, and they want to make money doing it. They do not seek, and never have sought, to supplant Dell or Microsoft.

They like their closed ecosystem. They're fully aware of the limitations it entails in terms of lineup gaps, careful control of user experience and product design, and zealous control of their brand. They're all deliberate choices to fit within a particular philosophy, made in full recognition of the obvious downsides. But every time there's an Apple story, someone has to whine about how it's not China Hardware Emporium running KDE with extra configuration panels. The same people will turn around the next day to defend common user complaints about Linux platforms by saying "you just don't get it".

Well, they just don't get Apple. You don't have to like Apple; you don't have to buy Apple. Running around and thinking that the ultimate goal of any given corporation is a monopoly is the kind of thinking that even a first semester economics student is forced to leave behind. What's optimal in the aggregate is not necessarily maximizing every single variable one at a time.

Why should they cut prices, and the resulting features and standards along with profits, to grow their market share? They have a giant pile of cash, and apart from being sued for unlawful trade practices, they could sell all of their machines at a loss and really blow their competitors away. But why would they? Price consumers aren't loyalty consumers. Why fight a war with 1000 strangers with clamped-shut wallets when you can get 100 people who will likely be repeat customers (while still making money, and more importantly, making the products you want to make)? I'm an investor in a local bakery--I'd rather them keep consistent quality, artisan craftsmanship, and prices relatively high (and catering to a smaller audience) than try to fight Safeway and its industrial-scale suppliers for supplying white bread and hamburger buns to the masses. Safeway has its place, and people who like getting white bread and hamburger buns as cheaply as possible can do that. Not everyone has to. Market share and price aren't the only two metrics for comparison, and yet everyone seems to insist on them to prolong a pointless flamewar, with "if Apple were Microsoft-sized, they wouldn't be able to get away with x". Yes, and if the atmosphere were methane, we'd all suffocate. Neglecting that condition x would have to be resolved in order to grow to Microsoft's size in the first place is usually the first flaw.

They don't compete in certain markets or at the bottom end of the price scale because they neither need to nor want to. That means there is an upper limit to their market share, and their strategy also turns off some people, but so be it. They were never the desirable kind of customer anyway for a company like Apple. They might be the target customer for a different kind of company. It all works out in the end.

Why do their adverts compare macs to windows then?Apple want to have it both ways, if it wasn't for their pitiful market share the DOJ would be literally ripping them apartlocking high-end MP3 players to their softwarelocking their software to their operating systemlocking their operating system to their hardwarelocking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)locking their phone to their software which is tied to certain operating systems

Why won't the EULA be found binding? I've used my Leopard Family Pack disc to make a hackintosh out of a Dell Mini9, and I read the EULA to some extent beforehand. I realize that I agreed to certain limitations when I bought the disc, and I know I'm violating my agreement installing Leopard on my Mini9. The part I'm not clear on, is what would be Apple's damages if they decided to sue me? I've bought enough Macs that I hope they'd go easy me on least. Anyway, you say the EULA is not binding -- can you

Lost in software? You can't 'lose' something you never had, except a chance. They lost the chance to sucker the user into buying some software for OSX, but they didn't lose any money. You can't buy the computer without the MacOS anyway.

The problem I see is that they've made a declaration in trying to mimic Apple's line product for product. To me, a better service to provide is to fill in the niches (gaps) in the Apple product line, a Hackintoshed netbook and a consumer tower are two obvious ones. That's not protection from getting sued though, I don't remember Psystar offering much other than consumer towers and a hokey "server".

Yes, there is. You just have to dig. The "get it here" link is a mailto for some guy at izdigital.com [izdigital.com] . Which is wierd, considering the website isn't called izdigital.com [izdigital.com]. So go to izdigital.com [izdigital.com] and take a look. The main page has a link to an ebay sale where "damacguy" is selling a mac compatible video card. How more "professional" and non "vaporware" could you get than that?

The same is true of the environment on Mars, but you're not going to change it. People complain that the only way to get supported access to an Apple OS is on Apple hardware is to be locked into Apple. The only way to get supported access to an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware will be to be locked into these third-party vendors. The theoretical solution - and best for the consumer - is for Apple to make it easier to install OS X (or whatever) on hardware they don't control. A show of hands for those who expect that to happen anytime soon? Didn't exactly get a breeze going from all of those hands flying up, did we?

The same is true of the environment on Mars, but you're not going to change it. People complain that the only way to get supported access to an Apple OS is on Apple hardware is to be locked into Apple. The only way to get supported access to an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware will be to be locked into these third-party vendors. The theoretical solution - and best for the consumer - is for Apple to make it easier to install OS X (or whatever) on hardware they don't control. A show of hands for those who expect that to happen anytime soon? Didn't exactly get a breeze going from all of those hands flying up, did we?

What exactly Quo think they will be doing different from others? Apple will definitely go after them with all their guns loaded, and how exactly does Quo think they will win? Their thinking doesn't make any sense. Now I am all for using computers with OS X, but they way I see it, I don't want to pay the extra money that Apple charges for their machine but that doesn't mean I am going to break the EULA. Era of me pirating software is over (it was over about 5 to 6 years ago and I have Ubuntu and the Linux

If you paid for a copy of the Mac OS you pirated nothing. If you installed it on different hardware you broke no laws except for fairy tale laws manufacturers want to lock you into. If you don't wan't me to install the software on anything else YOU as the manufacturer has to let me know before I make the final purchase at the store counter.

They sure as hell don't make any effort into making sure we all read the EULA before wee hand over our money.

All Apple has to do is to either stop offering shrink-wrapped copies of OS X, or sell upgrade-only disks that require an existing installation of OS X to work. Then Psystar, Quo and other unauthorized clones will cease to exist.

For 1,000 it will be more like a mac mini than an imac. Honestly, Dell has probelms shipping hardware that runs well for less than $800. When you get to a decent 24" IMac, there might only be a 10 or 15% saving on the Dell with Vista installed.

The biggest complaint I hear is not that you can't get a mac for $1000, as most people who will spend a $1000 will spend the $1300 for the imac, but that you can't get a mac for $500. This to me is that market segment that the cloners need to be in, not a 10% reduction from Apples. price. And don't try to say that these machines are going to complete with the high end iMac or low end Mac Pro and offer a 50% reduction in price. I don't see most other people shipping Xeon machines, much less with a terrebyte on board. I know that they can built for almost nothing, but really. Most people who want a $500 computer is not going to build it, they want plug and play.

Apple should embrace mac cloners.
Having cheaper clones of mac will only help to popularize macs and the os-x operating system (thanks to this little phenomenon [wikipedia.org]). Windows is only as popular as it is because it comes preinstalled on nearly every computer you buy. Mac fans should see this as a blessing.

Read a little history. They tried this in the 1990's. It nearly killed Apple. They won't do it again.

I use mac because OSX provided me with a Unix based desktop that worked on a laptop and had commercial application support including MS Office and Adobe products. I used to play with Linux, but never got my sound card, printer, and a host of other hardware to work back in the day. Especially if you wanted to run Linux on a laptop. If the Mac saves me 1 day of hassle of having to reinstall other OS's off

WRONG. Things are EXACTLY the same. Apple is a hardware company that makes its profit margins through marketing; every product is marketing first and capability second. It doesn't mean it's inferior, it just means it's expensive. Outside of the very high and very low end Apple has nothing competitive, period.

Apple should embrace mac cloners. Having cheaper clones of mac will only help to popularize macs and the os-x operating system

The problem there is, I'm pretty sure selling Mac OS isn't anywhere near as profitable as selling their higher-end computers.

Once Mac OS comes pre-installed onto a $300 Netbook, their thin share of the laptop market will dissolve. Once Mac OS comes pre-installed on a $250 desktop available at Best Buy - their thin market share of desktops will also disappear. At this point, Apple becomes a software company. Apple also has to figure out how to 'water down' and support Mac OS X since now it would run on almo

Has anyone even looked at Quo Computer website? Its entire content consists of a "maito" link. They don't even have their own domain in the link, instead mail goes to "rush" at "izdigital.com". A check shows registrant as:

Registrant:
This Domain is expired
Please renew at
www.domaincontender.com
New Orleans, LA 70130
US
(504) 274-4800

Seriously, folks. This passes for news now on the Internet media? A fly-by-night announces they will dethrone Apple, but so far they haven't yet figured out how to build a website or handle email. Right.

If I was trying to take down sue-happy Apple, I'd probably try to stay underground as long as possible.

Do you really believe that would deter the lawyers? A quick check on the web will tell you who the founder of Quo Computer is (Rashantha De Silva(1)), street address, phone number... what else do you need? A working company website? Heh.

If Steve Jobs wants to deter people from buying from clonemakers, IMHO he should do a limited production run of machines which have his signature prominently on the case, and accompany it with some form of watermark that prevents forgery, as well.

Note that I'm not advocating anything fascist like Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage here either, in terms of *penalising* anyone whose machine isn't from Apple. I'm talking about complete use of the carrot here, not the stick.

A little insight into how the media today works and how "news" like this spreads. The original interview seems to have appeared on CNET. Since then dozens of media outlets have been reporting it, and some just report that the interview took place - thus the interview becomes news. Those reports then comment on the interview, not the fact. To wit, this snippet from the Channel Register [channelregister.co.uk]:

But De Silva dreams big. Cnet reports, for example, that he told them of his plans to "work with school boards to get compu

Apple will sue them until they file for bankruptcy like they did Pystar.

If you are trying to sell Hackintosh systems, Apple will sue you to protect their territory.

Apple does not want Mac Clones because last time they allowed Mac Clones they cut into Apple's own sales. Apple makes most of its profits by selling hardware with software already installed on it. Cheaper Mac Clones will cut into hardware sales.

If you want to distinguish yourself sell Linux pre-installed on PC systems, even AROS or HaikuOS pre-installed on systems, some people don't want to install their own OS and want a pre-installed system. Make your money selling them tech support and developing software for Linux, AROS, and HaikuOS.

"Apple does not want Mac Clones because last time they allowed Mac Clones they cut into Apple's own sales."

I'm not entirely sure that that's entirely true.

One of Apple's primary sales point is it's commitment to the total user experience, and the best way they can ensure it will be as positive as possible is to retain ironclad control over the hardware, so as to tightly tie the software and drivers to it.

As someone who was asked to demo one of the Power Computing clones in the 90s I can say categorically that at that time the clone maker product was inferior to a comparable Apple manufactured machine. It crashed more frequently, locked up and was less responsive. Whether it was poor components, or in-house drivers, the Power Computing unit was *not* a Mac.

So, while there may be some validity that Apple doesn't want to lose the tangible sales, I would suspect that it's more important to the company that the intangible value of the user experience that they've spent so long perfecting isn't diluted by allowing another company to manufacture hardware, install the OS and market it, in anyway, shape or form, as a "Mac".

"Buy our computers, there's nothing special about them, they won't run your windoze software you like to run, they probably won't run your games. Your life won't be changed, you won't be happier or cooler. In short, there's no reason you should own a Mac. Errr...but buy one anyway."

There's, how's that. I await Apple's remuneration now that I've fixed their ad campaign for you.

And they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows or because Apple doesn't approve of it which is something of a puzzle to me but I guess buying into an image calls for some sacrifice to maintain that image... rather like all the trouble women go through with their hair and make-up.

You know, the other day I heard that Macs would be using Intel processors, so you could like, you know, run a copy of Windo